The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization--only contains one article, one template, one book, and one category. These can all be easily navigated from the footer. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
We have had countless cfds for eponymous musician categories and consensus has been against any with only 1 subcat. 2 subcats have gone either way.
Book:Arthur Loves Plastic doesn't belong in any mainspace category in my opinion. There is no need whatever to categorise
Arthur Loves Plastic in any of the categories mentioned as it is splendidly categorised elsewhere.
Occuli (
talk)
01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Arthur Loves Plastic remix compilation albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Arthur Loves Plastic remix EPs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Alumni of schools in England
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all as "People educated at.... "Alumni" is not widely used for school attendees in the UK. "Educated at" is clearly understood to mean pupils/students who attended a school, regardless of the outcome of the schooling process. (Non-admin closure, taking note of comments on the current RFC at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools and the more extensive arguments rehearsed at
CFD Feb 10.)
Fayenatic(talk)13:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Renaming to "Former pupils of" would be better and have the same effect of reducing the formats. It would also be consistent with the parent article. The support for "People educated by ... " has been from the same editors for the recent discussions and does not seem to be growing. This
RFC seems to better reflect the general views on the matter. There is also the alternative of renaming to "People who attended ...".
Cjc13 (
talk)
11:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The traditional term in England is 'Old Boys/Girls', not 'Former Pupils'. The opposition to 'People educated at' (as opposed to 'alumni') in the recent cfd discussions has been from the same editor.
Occuli (
talk)
12:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Support The parent category needs a rethink but we need to get the individual categories sorted out first. "People educated at" has been about the only workable format for the UK as shown in previous CFDs that have struck out "former pupils" and rejected reintroducing it.
Timrollpickering (
talk)
11:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Why not change the parent category first, then you will have a better idea of what is appropriate? The parent category was only
renamed in June 2010, a change which you supported. "Former pupils" is a perfectly workable format.
Cjc13 (
talk)
11:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename. "Alumni" has been thoroughly debunked by editors in the UK, and recent UK CfDs have all gone the way of "People educated at (X)". I am intrigued by Cjc13's suggestion of "People who attended," though. Once these are all in the same format, I might see how people feel about that direction. But for now, let's get these to the dominant format.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
14:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Old Etonians, etc is the current usage for former pupils of these schools. People will expect to find articles categorised in names with which they are familiar. A simple solution might be to name the categories in the format "Old Etonians (people educated at/who attended Eton College)". That would preserve the Old Boy/Girl naming system and provide an explanation for people who are unfamiliar with the names.
Dahliarose (
talk)
16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
You are opposing something that is not actually being proposed. Nobody is saying (in this CfD at least) that the "Old Tossers" categories be deleted. This CfD is aimed at the "Alumni of...." categories. --
Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (
Talk)
16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought the intention was to change all the England categories to this format. I see now that it is only those beginning with the word alumni. I change my vote to Support.
Dahliarose (
talk)
22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. In the UK, "Alumni" for schools is often defined as "Former pupils". In these cases, "Former pupils" could be substituted in place of "Alumni" without any loss of meaning. If you wanted to copy the American format, you could use "Foo School former pupils" for the categories.
Cjc13 (
talk)
21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename all to "people educated at". "Former pupils" fails because wikipedia discourages the use of "former" in category names, and because there is an ongoing debate over whether to call these people pupils or students, with the general trend (I did not say universal, just general) being a move towards favoring the term "students", so that over time use of pupils begins to look more and more antequated. The "people educated at" works fine. We do not want former.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I agree that Alumni is inappropriate and should be changed. But renaming to "Former pupils of" would be better, per Cjc13. "Attended" might be a workable alternative. ("Educated at" is a judgemental statement, "student" is not a timeless statement) But, again, lets work it out at
RFC for naming of by school student related categories before pulling the rug out from under our feet. Should the RFC support it, we would not wish to use any of the above but revert back to use some Old Foo terms back into that list.
Ephebi (
talk)
15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment This is so tedious. A dozen times in the last few months people have tried to chip away at this subject by sneaking in changes to the "Former Fooian" categories without opening up to broad discussion. In the past I have complained about having to patrol these b****y CfD pages to see what editors are trying to push under the radar when we could be something much more productive on WP. In spite of several of us expressing interest in this topic, and previous complaints, nobody has flagged this to past participants, at the RFC page or on the relevant article's pages. Again. What a shambles. Admins, please take note. This is again in contravention of
Wikipedia:Cfd#Procedure which recommends seeking expert input from the editors of the affected pages.
Ephebi (
talk)
15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
None of the nominated categories is (or has ever been) in the 'Old Fooian' or "former fooian" format. Broad support in the rfc and all Uk-cfds in 2011 has been for "people educated at" as opposed to former anythings or alumni (in UK categories). "Former pupils" is a dead duck in the UK. (I agree that it is more than tedious.)
Occuli (
talk)
15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
"broad support" seeming to mean 3 active UK CfD regulars instead of the 100s of editors of those pages? If you were to do the nomination properly in accordance with the CfD procedure and post notices on all the affected pages then could say that.
Ephebi (
talk)
20:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The only requirement is for all nominated pages to be tagged, which is exceptionally tedious even with AWB but has been done (the main creator of the 'Alumni' cats is
user:Bashereyre who has been notified in the recent past and has never objected). There is broad UK-support here, so far, in this very cfd:
user:Simple Bob is from Somerset and
user:Dahliarose is 'in England'.
Occuli (
talk)
11:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment Most of the ateempts to change these things over the last few months have succeeded. There are Zero people who have argued here we should leave it with alumni, most of the opposition comes from people who do not even really care about this but accidently think it involves their own pet project.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
As you obviously haven't absorbed the WP policy I highlighted above, I will spell it out for you: Consider adding
to the main article's talk page or to categories that are merge targets to notify users that the category has been nominated for deletion or renaming` — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ephebi (
talk •
contribs)
All the categories have been appropriately tagged, which is what current WP policy requires. Consider adding categories to your watchlist instead of relying on others to notify you in other ways about discussions you may care about.
Good Ol’factory(talk)10:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Most projects opt in for notifications about proposed moves and changes for categories and articles and templates and so on. So in most cases, the projects are already being notified.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools and several UK projects were automatically notified about these discussions.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename. Clearly the consensus here is that the current name is quite simply wrong so it needs renaming. The issue is what to rename it to. Since this is a bulk cleanup, it should be processed. If there are any that should be changed to the 'Former pupils of' form, those can be nominated and considered in a different nomination. Fix one problem and then discuss the second.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
20:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment It appears I was accused of not following procedures. I am the person who has painstakingly nominated 20 or more categories instead of just nominating the parent category just to make sure there is wide exposure for nominations on multiple occasions. Anyway, for the vast majority of alumni categories there is no main page. Personally I think Ephebi's cumbersome attempt to increase the required notifications is actually part of his attempt to prevent any changes at all. If people care about a categories name they can have the category on their watch page. There is no need for additional reporting requirements.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)reply
See my comments above. Most if not all of these had notices posted at various projects through the automatic process. The position that addition notifications are needed is a
red herring.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I think you misunderstand as I presume you are referring to placing notifications on the category page. Only a handful of editors have created, edited or renamed the categories (hence they were renamed to "Alumni of ..."), and most of those category page editors are already involved in this discussion (although it appears that few have made significant content edits to the underlying school pages.) But none of the talk pages for the schools affected has been notified. Editors of those pages will be better qualified to accurately contribute what those former pupils are normally called. That is what I referred to earlier when I requested that notifications are placed on the main article's talk page, per the recommended CfD process cited above. Some schools use the Old Fooian concept, e.g RSLOld Boys...
Ephebi (
talk)
10:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: A fair point,
Template:Cfdnotice could have been placed on
Talk:Bingley Grammar School, etc. However, as this nomination is not touching any "Old Fooians", and is solely to rename the minority of school categories that include the word "Alumni" to "People educated", IMHO it is not such a material change as to make it appropriate to notify the school pages. Use of that notice is a courtesy rather than a requirement. -
Fayenatic(talk)11:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dramatic works about abortion
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Split into categories for books, films, plays, etc. (not for TV episodes; those might just have to end up in the "Abortion in fiction" cat without their own subcat).
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
21:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Merge. If some things in this case are not "fiction" they can be moved elsewhere, however all dramatic works are by definition ficitonal. Something "based on a true story" is still fictional. It is not an actual representation of truth. We can create appropriate sub-cats after merging. We should merge now and figure out if we need subcats then.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
“Based on a true story” *is* a “representation of truth”. You may question “Which truth?” There may be more “truth” in real story of the “social pressures associated with abortion” as created in a portray populated with fully fictional characters than in a documentary of stitched primary sources. Dividing at a high level, dramatic or creative works about abortion into fiction and non-fiction would be a POV nightmare. Suggest a merge in the other direction. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
04:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Petitions for a writ of certiorari
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. I find this truly bizarre, unless it was just created by someone who misunderstood what the phrase means and how it is commonly used in U.S. law.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
delete for a few reasons, first with three VERY SMALL EXCEPTIONS all cases heard by the SCotUS come from certiorari. The original jurisdiction of the court is almost nonexistantly small. Secondly, the court accepts about 1.5% of all valid writs presented to it, the vast majority of writs are not accepted for whatever reason (no desire to address the issues, the court doesn't feel the federal appellate court needs to be supported or contradicted for whatever reason, lack of an important federal question), meaning of the vast majority of cases here aren't notable and those that are, are covered under the cases of the US Supreme Court.
HominidMachinae (
talk)
01:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. As explained, the category is pointless and its members irrelevant. (Original jurisdiction cases, on the other hand, might be worth categorizing.)
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
21:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dirty War media
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Contemporary Philosophers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale "Contemporary" means "during the lifetime of". So whose lifetime are we measuring. That of wikipedia itself? That of the categorizer, that of the average person worldwide, that of some other group? The fact that there is a
Category:20th-century philosophers that is a subcat of this cat, as well as a
Category:21st-century philosophers seems to indicate we have a much better system that avoids the ambiguity of the use of the term "contemporary". Anyway many of the 20th-century philosphers will hardly be contemporary, so it would seem the best option would just be to delete this ill-defined category and just use the century specific cats.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose - It refers to the contemporary era, and does not necessarily refer to philosophers who are alive. You will notice that this category is consistent with the naming of a several other categories.
Greg Bard (
talk)
23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Contemporary Indian philosphers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale The category heading says it is for "philosphers of modern India". It would seem logical to use the same adjective in all cases. The first person in the category died in 1939, which means he is not contemporary to most living people, so it seems a bit much to use the adjective contemporary in his case.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Peninsular War media
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I'm going to start chipping away at
User:Stefanomione's vaster media by war/war by medium schema. This one is not his but appears to be inspired by his mis-use of "media" to describe such creative works as paintings. In this case, I suggest upmerging per
WP:SMALLCAT.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
14:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Letters by alphabet
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The letters are not organized by alphabet (Spanish alphabet, Dutch alphabet, French alphabet etc., but by script.).
Bogdan Nagachop (
talk)
12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Thai australian rules footballer
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Grammatical errors aside, just one player in over 100 years of
AFL football has had a Thai background. Category completely unnecessary
Jevansen (
talk)
05:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete I think it's textbook overcategorization when a singular instead of a plural in the category name is accurate— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
HominidMachinae (
talk •
contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:GameCube
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:General Slocum fire
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Female pool players
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The name is too narrow and exclusive for a number of reasons (to the extent that the rationales given in previous CFDs for this category's existence may still be valid at all under current
WP:EGRS wording, and under other guidelines/policies like
WP:Neutral point of view and
WP:NOT#SOAPBOX).
There's too much overlap for this level of specificity to be warranted. For example, more than half of the top-5
Women's Professional Billiards Association pool players, for around the last decade, have also been professional
snooker players (such crossover is less common among male players for organizational politics reasons, not chromosomes; the WPBA has actively recruited women snooker players to pool, while the predominantly male leagues like the
USPPA haven't done likewise with male snooker pros).
The number of individuals is too small for this level of specificity, and so is the number of specializations. Contrast
Category:Female racecar drivers, which supposedly has a large enough population of drivers distributed in a large enough set of different types of drivers to warrant sub-categorization by type, though even this is debatable under EGRS's current wording.
Over-categorizing so specifically amounts to starting a parallel category structure split by gender, which is precisely what WP:EGRS says not to do (though some exceptions, like the subcategories of Category:Female racecar drivers, noted above, seem to be tolerated perhaps because they've never been CfD'd).
WP:EGRS advises against over-specificity as "ghettoizing", using examples like the triple intersection "Category:Gay German politicians". Female pool players is actually a triple intersection despite its brevity, of female, cue sports (billiards) players and pocket billiards (pool) players in particular, like German politicians in particular. The guideline suggests keeping any EGRS category at a high level, like
Category:Gay politicians and
Category:Female heads of government, and adding more specific non-EGRS categories as needed, like
Category:German politicians and
Category:Prime Ministers of Sri Lanka. Ergo, Category:Female cue sports players, and the extant non-EGRS qualifiers like Category:[Nationality] pool players and/or Category:[Nationality] carom billiards players, and/or Category:[Nationality] snooker players, added as separate categories.
Over-specificity is a maintenance headache and can lead to inaccuracy (e.g. if a player's article does not yet happen to cite one of the sources saying that she was a pool player as well as a snooker player at some point, she would be excluded from the unnecessarily narrow pool category unless and until someone happened to use a source that happened to mention the pool side of her career and the editor happened to notice that the pool category wasn't used on her article yet). That's a lot of failure points.
Female
carom billiards players are actually much less common than pool players, thus more "notable" to people who think that being female in a mostly male-populated field or vice versa is automagically "notable", but there probably aren't enough actually notable ones to support a category; meanwhile there are easily enough female snooker players for a category, but there isn't one, nor any interest at
WP:SNOOKER in creating and maintaining one. Category:Female pool players is a premature subcategory without a parent. Effectively upmerging female players of all three cue sports types into a Category:Female cue sports players just makes sense and makes things easier (assuming any such category is kept at all).
Comment: Then you or someone else who cares to keep these things current and in synch needs to go re-establish a consensus on the wording at
WP:EGRS, since it specifically uses
Category:Gay German politicians (a.k.a.
Category:LGBT politicians from Germany in different wording) as one of its main verboten examples! I go by what the guidelines actually say, not by what exceptions to them I can find somewhere. PS: Sorry, but I find that any time I provide a "snappier rationale" when any sort of EGRS issue is at stake, too many people fly off the handle and leap to "defend" an "important" category/article/whatever from being "attacked" by a "sexist"/"racist"/whatever, etc., etc. Previous debates about even this category in particular demonstrate an amazing number of knee-jerk, emotive reactions that have nothing at all to do with the facts of the topic (e.g., an encyclopedic article cannot be written about it, because it would be a blatant exercise in POV pushing and soapboxing). But I'm proposing a rename to make it come a little bit closer to making sense as a category, not proposing a deletion. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs.18:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:In-flight airliner fires
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fires of unknown cause
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Is this really a defining characteristic of fires? While this is a nice to know, I'm not sure that it belongs as a category. The current structure (
Category:Fires by type seems to favor categorizing by what burned rather then the cause or lack of one.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep or make subcategory; if a fire's cause is unknown, then isn't that just as relevant as where or when it occurred?
Well, classifying the cause of a fire as unknown depends on the skill and abilities of those doing the investigation. As forensics science has developed, we have become more able to determine the causes of fires. I suppose that if you plotted the occurrence of these, you start at 100% from unknown causes and then you get to something approaching 0% unknown. Also if you read
Our Lady of the Angels School fire, while officially listed as unknown, arson seems to be the confirmed cause the way the article is worded. So in a case like that, was it arson or was it something else and did it get classified do the the skills of those doing the investigation or was the cause officially not announced for some reason?
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
We should only state that the cause is unknown if reliable sources say "the cause is unknown", not based on our own judgment as to whether proof is conclusive. postdlf (talk)
22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. Since we don't categorize fires by cause, I don't see why we would categorize this way. Even if we did categorize fires by cause, this would seem like a kind of "remainders" or "unknown" category that we tend to avoid when developing a scheme.
Good Ol’factory(talk)01:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There is a major difference between not knowing the cause and knowing the cause but not having the proof that rises to the level that one can make an official statement. Police commonly know who the criminal that committed a crime is. However they can not act until they have the evidence that a court would require to convict.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, well, maybe the
Our Lady of the Angels school fire wouldn't fit, but we know NOTHING AT ALL about the cause of the fire on
PIA Flight 740 or
Saudia Flight 163. It'll probably be better if it's pared down like that, but inclusion of articles that don't quite fit is in no way grounds for category deletion. And may I point out that the Our Lady of the Angels fire is in no way typical of the fires in said category. The majority of those articles are about fires about the cause of which NOTHING IS KNOWN. If the articles about fires the cause of which is known but unproven are removed, it won't shrink the category much.
Whoop whoop pull upBitching Betty |
Averted crashes19:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Arab music
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Categories by revolution
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Part of
User:Stefanomione's vast and largely unnecessary Foo by revolution/Revolutions by foo schema, this category has as its contents only
Category:People by revolution, which is itself well-categorized. So I can see no practical use for this container cat. Perhaps the creator intended it for additional foo by revolution categories, but as we are now deleting them at a rapid pace, the nominated category is unlikely to be useful for future searches.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series with stars' names in the title
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Honorary members of the Malaysian Nature Society
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We generally avoid categorizing people by honorary memberships or honorary degrees because they are like awards—people often receive a lot of them in their lifetime and they are not particularly defining for the individuals so honored.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Whether or not all of those conform with
the guideline is not really the point. Users are free to create any categories they like; they won't be deleted unless nominated and discussed. So there may well be hundreds or even thousands of problematic categories that are as-yet undiscussed. Don't compare apples to oranges (the nominated vs. the unnominated), compare apples to apples (the nominated
vs. the nominated).
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Wow. What a work. Actually, the point is how this compares to the guideline rather than precedents, but thanks for the link anyway – I'll make a note in my toolbox. -
Fayenatic(talk)20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Agreed. I know I just recategorised that and a few others while I was exploring the hierarchy, but that was just a bit of quick tidying-up without prejudice to nominating them later. -
Fayenatic(talk)09:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete It is too easy to be a honorary member of something. Real members have to do something so in theory there is a limit to how many socieities you can have a real membership in. Honorary members do nothing so someone could be an honorary member of 20 or more societies.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.